1 David Yakobson
From: Peter Altschuler <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2025 9:37 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Proposed new water rates
EXTERNAL
There’s a water problem. In California, there’s always been a water problem. Yet it’s one that the City could have helped mitigate… if it had taken a stand against State mandates for new housing.
Every new resident adds to the demand for water. By the time all the required units are built, Santa Monica could have between 10 and 30 thousand new people who need water for drinking, bathing, watering their plants and, maybe, washing their cars.
Yet no provision was made in any of the State’s housing laws to assist with infrastructure costs, such as waste water treatment, or to recognize the impact of new residents on the limited water and power supplies. Santa Monica, which had to contend with zoning revisions when its first proposal was rejected, seems to have lost sight of the greater impact — the cost of supporting all those new residents.
There is no evidence that an effort was made, with or without the involvement of the state assemblyman and senator who represent the City’s citizens, to convince the State to provide financial assistance to the cities being compelled to add more housing. The laws certainly provided assistance to developers, offering endless variances that defeated the stated objective to provide affordable housing.
So the current realization that Santa Monica is facing a water problem is evidence of either willful myopia or Panglossian misperception.
Asking property owners — the ones who have cut back on usage consistently during requests from the City and State during the height of the drought — to absorb what is, essentially, a tax is an indictment of the City’s lack of foresight, planning and, in its dealings with Sacramento, fortitude.
If the impositions on water infrastructure are now so pronounced, the costs should be borne by the developers who’ve added so significantly to the demand for water, not as a penalty imposed on long-term residents for “doing the right thing” by reducing their consumption.
Item 7-A
March 25, 2025
Item 7-A
March 25, 2025